DreamWorks’ Family Argument

All filmmakers should have this handicap: Make a comedy for the 25-and-older crowd. The studio sells it as family fare for the preteen set instead. It evolves into one of the holiday season’s brighter surprises. All involved are proved right--and wrong--for one simple reason: audience word of mouth, the best advertising money can’t buy.

Such is the plight of DreamWorks’ sleeper hit “Galaxy Quest,” a movie that bowed Christmas weekend to $8 million and has steadily built an audience since then, amassing a cumulative box-office total of about $50 million.

The film’s producer, Mark Johnson, contends an older audience stepped in and picked up the ball that DreamWorks dropped by not targeting the film to an adult crowd. “Galaxy Quest” garnered mostly upbeat reviews from critics who praised the film’s witty sendup of a “Star Trek”-like TV show.

But some of DreamWorks’ competitors and others see it another way: By marketing the film initially to kids, DreamWorks seized a prime opportunity for family-friendly fare during the holidays, then shrewdly waited for adults to pick up the buzz.

Last week, Johnson and DreamWorks’ marketing chief, Terry Press, did something unusual: They confronted each other about how the $45-million film, which stars Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver and Alan Rickman, was sold and whether it could have become an even bigger hit. It offers a fly-on-the-wall glimpse of the kind of “creative differences” that are rarely, if ever, explained in Hollywood.

Here are some excerpts from their discussion--and some background on the debate.

Johnson: “Terry, I think you have to admit, the studio always wanted this to be a family movie. We didn’t. When we would argue that it was a PG-13 comedy with an adult sensibility, I’d hear the expression, ‘We don’t want to leave any money on the table.’ ”

Press: “It’s true we did try to sell it to everybody, from 8 to 80. We did see it as a family film. The question is, did we make [the marketing campaign] look clever enough for the adult audience to “get it”? I’d say, sporadically.”

Johnson: “I’d say no. That’s where we disagree strongly. That is the bone of contention.”

(Johnson believes studio executives were premature in determining how they would sell this spoof of TV sci-fi shows with Tim Allen in the lead. Executives saw it four weeks after the production wrapped in early September. Missing were many of the 400 special-effects shots yet to be added in a rushed postproduction schedule for the film to meet a Dec. 10 release. For that many shots, postproduction usually takes six months. It was clipped to three.

The filmmakers got a small breather when DreamWorks moved the release date to Christmas Day. Shortly after executives saw the film, two early test screenings proved disastrous. The film was shown to very young audiences with their parents. Many swear words remained.)

Johnson: “The unfortunate thing is our first and only previews were with really young kids and the mothers were furious [over foul language]. The wrong audience was recruited for the version of the film they saw.”

Press: “That is true. The [company hired] to do the recruiting was supposed to recruit what Mark wanted.”

Johnson: “Well, that wasn’t it. They fouled up big time.”

Press: “There was a disconnect with the audience because they were very young kids and because of the language. Plus, many of the effects, like the rock monster that would have really played to that audience, hadn’t been added. The third preview is the one that played to older audiences and it drew a great response, with people referring to the film as a Zucker Bros.’ picture or ‘Spaceballs’ for TV shows. They got the inside jokes, especially on [washed-up] actors.”

(Still, the studio targeted the marketing campaign to family audiences with elements like the rock monster taking center stage in all television ads. The element of parody was missing. “I had no idea what they were selling. The word was, here’s a great funny movie for adults, but it looked like a cheesy, ‘50s B-movie for kids,” said a Universal Pictures marketing executive. “They completely down-marketed a good movie, and that is not like DreamWorks. They are among the best at what they do.”

DreamWorks was in a tough position in selling the parody aspect to older audiences, according to Press. Legally it could not poke fun at anything insinuating another studio’s franchise, such as Paramount’s lucrative “Star Trek” film and TV venture. Plus, she said the film’s story line was complicated, making it difficult to sum up quickly in TV spots and print ads.)

Press: “First of all, we did believe in the movie or we wouldn’t have released it at Christmas. Secondly, we spent a fortune on advertising because it was Christmas, which is the most expensive time of the year in terms of advertising.

“It is a very clever movie but the message [to adult audiences] was, in some ways, difficult to tell. Adults like this movie because of the humor; kids like it because of the monsters.”

Johnson: “The material in the campaign showed rock monsters chasing Tim Allen around. That spoke to kids, not adults.”

Press: “You have 30 seconds in a TV spot to tell a story and you can’t even say the story line in 30 seconds! Try it: Here’s a group of disgruntled actors on a TV show that’s not on the air anymore that go to a fan convention and while they’re signing autographs these real aliens show up and. . . . See my point? It’s a clever idea but hard to fit in 30 seconds.

“We went back and forth on this: Do you show them as washed-up actors? Or, do you throw them in spacesuits and hope it conveys some TV space show parody? Was it played too young? It doesn’t look like ‘Stuart Little’ but is it ultimately sophisticated? No.”

(Tom Sherak, chairman of 20th Century Fox Domestic Film Group, lauded DreamWorks’ move. “Look, they had a choice. Sell this movie, as they did and be the No. 3 family movie for the holidays [behind “Toy Story 2” and “Stuart Little”] or wind up being the No. 6 adult movie at Christmas. I’ll take the No. 3 spot anytime, thank you.

“Plus, you have Tim Allen, who is very popular and his movies that have done well at the box office are family movies. My opinion? They did a very good job selling this, because I look at ‘Galaxy Quest’ as a family movie.”

Still, Press insists the studio was trying to find the right sell for older audiences as well.)

Press: “We literally looked at 300 different posters trying to convey the right tone for all audiences we believed would want to see this great little movie. Do I think we nailed it? No. But like everything else with this movie, we simply ran out of time.”

Johnson: “That is true. They did try very hard, but the rush hurt us.”

(The dilemma, as one top Sony marketing executive sees it, is “DreamWorks was rushing a ‘tweener’--a movie caught between audiences, in this case kids and 25-year-olds. It wasn’t a clean sell, to one or the other. You throw it out there if it’s a good movie and hope that word of mouth carries it.”

Word of mouth did sell the film. Press screenings didn’t. Most movies, particularly around the holiday rush, have early screenings. That was not the case with “Galaxy Quest.”)

Press: “We had one print to work with and we were running out of time. So we opted for a screening in New York to get critical response so we could use quotes in the ads. That is a tough audience, and I wanted to see how it would play.”

Johnson: “Right. Well, there may have not been time for a bunch of screenings weeks in advance, but why not sell the sizzle? Clearly, when the press can’t see the movie, I’d have to think they would believe it’s not very good--that it has a stench on it.”

Press: “That is not the case. Again, we had one print and that is not a criticism of the filmmakers. They killed themselves to get the film finished in time, and they did a fabulous job. Time was just working against us. And we did tons of promotional screenings for the public the week prior to the opening. That is all we could do. We did not want to show the press an unfinished movie. I guess you could argue that the December run of ‘Galaxy Quest’ was the most expensive word-of-mouth screenings in history.”

(Some observers felt DreamWorks’ lost its focus on “Galaxy Quest” over the holiday season because it was distracted by its academy campaign for “American Beauty,” a critical favorite and anticipated contender for best picture, acting and directing Oscars. They point to a DreamWorks party held during the holiday period that had “American Beauty”--a September release--not “Galaxy Quest” as its theme.

Press said the “American Beauty” campaign took nothing away from promotions for “Galaxy Quest,” and that the party for that film was a part of that academy promotion and in no way implied a snub. “Why would we [snub] our own movie?”)

Press: We have changed the marketing campaign somewhat and it does skew older. Are you happy with it now?”

Johnson: “Yes.”

(But one exhibitor and several marketing executives said if the movie is already selling word of mouth, changing the campaign midstream isn’t really necessary. And if you “change the message significantly . . . you run the risk of confusing the audience.”

Press: “This movie was a family movie for December and has become the adult movie to see in January. It’s a sleeper in the classic sense, and I’m happy with that.”

Johnson: “Agreed.”

Give Us Attitude

* For sneer genius and movie-stealing ability, no one tops British actor Alan Rickman. F14